Where you're going with this statement:
"more companies providing television media now than there were 20 years ago". What do you mean by "television media". Can you be any more vague?
By "television media", I mean "television media". How many companies were providing programming 20 years ago? How many companies are providing programming today?
Privatize them? Who gets the profit from the sale of the airwaves then? The government? Who?
My proposal is to abolish the FCC and let the chips fall where they may. Those who are first able to make legitimate use of a frequency have the right to use that frequency. Let common law sort out any conflicts.
If you want diversity, you don't put things into a marketplace because those with the biggest pockets usually have similar interests.
Observe the diversity of speech in periodicals at any bookstore or newsstand, or the diversity of speech on the Internet or in film, all mediums where there is private ownership of production and distribution.
Only, not, because they're all owned by titanic media conglomerates run by incredibly wealthy folks who, quite understandably, tend toward a conservative bent.
"Conservative bent" only if you mean "conservative" as in "those to the right of Pol Pot".
...about as much as collective farms in the Soviet Union belonged to "the people".
If you want less censorship, the only solution is to privatize the airwaves and abolish the FCC. Of course, this won't stop the communists at "Democracy Now" from whining about "corporate media consolidation" (which is false, as there are more companies providing television media now than there were 20 years ago).
You just don't get it do you. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REDEFINE WORDS SO THAT YOUR ARGUMENT MAKES SENSE.
I am not re-defining words. In the context of the original discussion, your use of the term 'regulate' was completely different from how most people use the term when talking about "regulating the Internet".
This is the same argument that you just made. The one that I tore to pieces.
You do not address any of my points.
You do not supply any new facts, nor new reasoning.
Google for 'regulate OR regulation OR regulating'. In what context is the term most often being used in the English language? Is it in terms of government regulating something, or is it in terms of a corporation regulating something?
You want to define government intervention as being part of the "free market",
Not part of, protecting. And you've yet to present anything remotely resembling a valid argument against that proposition.
Protecting a free market means enforcing contracts, defending private property and prosecuting fraud - doing the things that ordinary people would do if there was no government. Otherwise, a free market is defined by a lack of government intervention. Having the government dictate to service providers what business models are acceptable is not protecting the free market.
You're arguing bullshit semantics. Your original statement was:
1. The telcos want the power to regulate the internet.
2. Network neutrality forbids regulation so that we retain a free market on the internet.
When ordinary people hear "regulate the Internet", they think 'government', not 'corporation'. You were attempting to twist that around so that "regulate the Internet" means something the corporations do, not something the government does.
You want us to believe that these corporations are a big evil cabal acting as one entity with power far exceeding that of a State, all conspiring to deny you access to the Internet. You want to define government intervention as being part of the "free market", when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
I've been wondering about something. Maybe you can tell me. Do I need to go through some sort of initiation ritual in order to get a license for operating the Anarcho-capitalist word-redefinition-machine? Or can I just go ahead and redefine any word I wish in order to make it fit my preconceptions?
When ordinary people think 'regulation', they think 'government', not 'corporation'. You are the one redefining terms. Not I.
lol, listen, dumbass, it takes a special kind of stupid not to notice that without laws to that effect, EVERY bar and restaurant is full of smoke.
Actually no, not "EVERY" bar and restaurant is full of smoke. There are plenty of non-smoking restaurants, and those that allow smoking generally have separate sections.
So what you're saying is that because smokers are too braindead not to get hooked to an addictive poison, they should get the special right to fill the air of every place they feel like polluting with the waste of their disgusting habit, rendering the place inhospitable for anyone but their own, vile, kind.
There are no "special rights". There is only the right of the property owner to allow or disallow smoking as he sees fit.
Oh yeah, "don't make my clothes stink, my hair stink, my eyes hurt and my lungs fill up with SMOKE carrying a poison to my bloodstream" is finicky! lol! It's a CHEMICAL AGRESSION from one party to another, it's the very basis of society that such agressions are not tolerated. A lot of smokers are too egocentrical to admit that their own addiction does not entitle them to subject others to their filth, but their delusions are inconsequential.
You chose to enter a place where there might be smokers. Nobody forced you to do so. I have no problem staying out of such places. If it's a problem for you, you might want to re-examine your priorities.
No, it means that your statement was such a pile of nonsensical drivel that there was no point in adressing any of the specifics.
To those with sanity, and a basic respect for free association and private property rights, my statement makes perfect sense.
Deciding who gets to communicate with whom, and at what speed, is regulation.
To impose regulation, you need a monopoly of violence that only a state can provide. A private company deciding how to operate the network it owns is not regulation.
Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to enter a bar or restaurant full of tobacco smoke. Therefore, you have no right to hold a gun to the heads of bar or restaurant owners, and force them to accommodate your finickiness.
...and made a complete leap of illogic to this...
So you're saying I should shoot smokers in the head then.
...means that pond scum has more intelligence than you.
1. The telcos want the power to regulate the internet.
2. Network neutrality forbids regulation so that we retain a free market on the internet.
Handing the power to regulate the internet over to a few large corporations, with no goal except to maximize their own profits, seems a bad idea to me.
What a perverse way to redefine the debate. Define the telcos as the "regulators" and declare government intervention to be "a free market".
Like the sidewalk directly outside my place of work? There's always someone out there smoking it seems, so I'm supposed to avoid that? How? I'm not going to just cower at home! All I want is to not smell smoke, since it makes me feel sick. Is that so much to ask?
Lots of smells annoy me, but I don't run to Big Brother to solve my problems.
When walking at a normal pace, I pass by a stationary cigarette smoker quickly enough that I can avoid inhaling for a few seconds. If I'm in a particularly bad mood, I'll flash them a dirty look.
Your freedom to pollute your environment stops where it affects someone's freedom to enjoy clean air.
Wrong answer.
Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to enter a bar or restaurant full of tobacco smoke. Therefore, you have no right to hold a gun to the heads of bar or restaurant owners, and force them to accommodate your finickiness.
When your smoke stays out of my lungs and eyes, and when its stink stays out of my clothes and hair you'll have a point. In the meantime, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Or instead, you could do what a reasonable person would do, and stay out of places likely to have cigarette smoke.
When will US conservatives realize they've been betrayed by a pack of radical facists, who favor any corporation from any nation over the rights of any individual anywhere?
If you understood what fascism was, you would know that it is a form of guild socialism that has nothing to do with business corporations.
There is economic value to dumping your trash (waste, exhaust, etc) without having to pay for it. The above is about measuring and billing for what you dump.
And I'll add that perhaps you can backup some of your allegations with a link, or some sort of actual argument, rather than just unfalsifiable statements.
You would evidently require a link, or an "actual argument" to prove that the sky is blue.
One poster already stated that infant mortality is defined differently from nation to nation, and that Cuba has an abnormally high abortion rate. The fact that Cuba has apparently arresteddoctors in the past for talking about certain illnesses indicates that what I'm saying is probably accurate.
To expect truthful statistics from a totalitarian government is, at best, laughably naive.
A business the size of america with its own army would be a frightening thing to see.
If a business claimed a monopoly of legitimate violence over America, and proceeded to enforce it, then it would be a State.
In the real world, however, the largest corporations own comparatively very little, and aren't much interested in claiming a monopoly of legitimate violence, as that tends to piss off potential customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Document or retract.
No, that stupid video is not documentation.
By "television media", I mean "television media". How many companies were providing programming 20 years ago? How many companies are providing programming today?
My proposal is to abolish the FCC and let the chips fall where they may. Those who are first able to make legitimate use of a frequency have the right to use that frequency. Let common law sort out any conflicts.
Observe the diversity of speech in periodicals at any bookstore or newsstand, or the diversity of speech on the Internet or in film, all mediums where there is private ownership of production and distribution.
"Conservative bent" only if you mean "conservative" as in "those to the right of Pol Pot".
...about as much as collective farms in the Soviet Union belonged to "the people".
If you want less censorship, the only solution is to privatize the airwaves and abolish the FCC. Of course, this won't stop the communists at "Democracy Now" from whining about "corporate media consolidation" (which is false, as there are more companies providing television media now than there were 20 years ago).
I am not re-defining words. In the context of the original discussion, your use of the term 'regulate' was completely different from how most people use the term when talking about "regulating the Internet".
Google for 'regulate OR regulation OR regulating'. In what context is the term most often being used in the English language? Is it in terms of government regulating something, or is it in terms of a corporation regulating something?
Protecting a free market means enforcing contracts, defending private property and prosecuting fraud - doing the things that ordinary people would do if there was no government. Otherwise, a free market is defined by a lack of government intervention. Having the government dictate to service providers what business models are acceptable is not protecting the free market.
When ordinary people hear "regulate the Internet", they think 'government', not 'corporation'. You were attempting to twist that around so that "regulate the Internet" means something the corporations do, not something the government does.
You want us to believe that these corporations are a big evil cabal acting as one entity with power far exceeding that of a State, all conspiring to deny you access to the Internet. You want to define government intervention as being part of the "free market", when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Who passes and enforces laws?
When ordinary people think 'regulation', they think 'government', not 'corporation'. You are the one redefining terms. Not I.
Actually no, not "EVERY" bar and restaurant is full of smoke. There are plenty of non-smoking restaurants, and those that allow smoking generally have separate sections.
There are no "special rights". There is only the right of the property owner to allow or disallow smoking as he sees fit.
You chose to enter a place where there might be smokers. Nobody forced you to do so. I have no problem staying out of such places. If it's a problem for you, you might want to re-examine your priorities.
To those with sanity, and a basic respect for free association and private property rights, my statement makes perfect sense.
To impose regulation, you need a monopoly of violence that only a state can provide. A private company deciding how to operate the network it owns is not regulation.
Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to enter a bar or restaurant full of tobacco smoke. Therefore, you have no right to hold a gun to the heads of bar or restaurant owners, and force them to accommodate your finickiness.
So you're saying I should shoot smokers in the head then.
What a perverse way to redefine the debate. Define the telcos as the "regulators" and declare government intervention to be "a free market".
How did you get to be such a stupid asshat?
Lots of smells annoy me, but I don't run to Big Brother to solve my problems.
When walking at a normal pace, I pass by a stationary cigarette smoker quickly enough that I can avoid inhaling for a few seconds. If I'm in a particularly bad mood, I'll flash them a dirty look.
Wrong answer.
Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to enter a bar or restaurant full of tobacco smoke. Therefore, you have no right to hold a gun to the heads of bar or restaurant owners, and force them to accommodate your finickiness.
Or instead, you could do what a reasonable person would do, and stay out of places likely to have cigarette smoke.
Your definitions seem to be from quotes of highly questionable accuracy.
So is mudding with a V8 4x4, or any number of other activities demonized by socialist environmentalists.
If you understood what fascism was, you would know that it is a form of guild socialism that has nothing to do with business corporations.
Then un-grant it, and end the subsidies. Any money already collected by the companies is water under the bridge.
You would evidently require a link, or an "actual argument" to prove that the sky is blue.
One poster already stated that infant mortality is defined differently from nation to nation, and that Cuba has an abnormally high abortion rate. The fact that Cuba has apparently arrested doctors in the past for talking about certain illnesses indicates that what I'm saying is probably accurate.
To expect truthful statistics from a totalitarian government is, at best, laughably naive.
If a business claimed a monopoly of legitimate violence over America, and proceeded to enforce it, then it would be a State.
In the real world, however, the largest corporations own comparatively very little, and aren't much interested in claiming a monopoly of legitimate violence, as that tends to piss off potential customers.
If I want truthful, unbiased information, savetheinternet.com is the last place I'm going.